Home / Full timeline / In Corrigan v. Buckley, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that racially restrictive covenants in housing did not violate the 5th or 14th amendments in relation to equal protection because they were private agreements, rather than government sponsored agreements. After this ruling, racially restrictive covenants flourish around the nation.
In Corrigan v. Buckley, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that racially restrictive covenants in housing did not violate the 5th or 14th amendments in relation to equal protection because they were private agreements, rather than government sponsored agreements. After this ruling, racially restrictive covenants flourish around the nation.
1926 (May 24)
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Corrigan v. Buckley, held that racially restrictive covenants were not in violation of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments in relation to equal protection under the law. The case was heard by the high court when Irene Corrigan attempted to sell property to a Black American after having entered into a neighborhood agreement that excluded Blacks from ever owning the property. Her neighbors sued to stop her and the Supreme Court ruled that it held no jurisdiction in the case. The decision was based on the fact that the amendments in question pertained to governmental actions, not to private actions or private contracts. Discriminatory contracts were, in effect, declared constitutional as long as no governmental actions were involved. After this ruling, racially restrictive covenants flourished around the nation.
References:
- • Hornsby, Alton. Chronology of African-American History: Significant Events and People from 1619 to the Present. Detroit: Gale Research, 1995.
- • Asch, Chris Myers; Musgrove, George Derek (2017). Chocolate City: A History of Race and Democracy in the Nation's Capital. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9781469635866.